A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit that was filed by seven states, two individuals, and several Catholic institutions. The groups filed the lawsuit because they felt that requiring religious employers to cover birth control violated their religious beliefs. The judge decided the complaint was not yet ripe for review.
There have been several lawsuits filed in an attempt to block the portion of the Affordable Care Act that requires employers, including religious employers, to cover the cost of contraception in the health insurance plans that are offered to their employees. Those opposed to this coverage feel that it violates their religious freedom, or their religious beliefs, or perhaps both.
Sarah Lipton-Lubet, who is the policy council for the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote a blog that explained exactly why these sorts of lawsuits have no legal merit. We are now just beginning to see evidence that she was correct about this assertion.
U.S. District Judge Warren Urborn dismissed a federal lawsuit that was brought by groups who wanted to block the birth control coverage mandate. There have been several very similar lawsuits filed about this portion of the Affordable Care Act. This is the first one that has been dismissed by a federal judge.
The plaintiffs for this case were the Attorneys General of seven states: Nebraska, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Other plaintiffs included two individuals, (one was a nun, and the other was a female missionary). Additional plaintiffs were Catholic Social Services, Pius X High School, and the Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America. The defendant was the United States Department of Justice.
The Justice Department argued that the plaintiffs faced no immediate threat of having to offer birth control coverage because the federal government delayed the enforcement of that law until August of 2013. This has been called a “safe harbor” provision. The purpose is to give time to make accommodations for some religious groups. It is worth noting that a previous compromise resulted in having the insurance companies – not the religious organizations themselves – be required to pay for contraceptive coverage.
Judge Urborn said:
“The plaintiffs face no direct and immediate harm, and one can only speculate whether the plaintiffs will ever feel any effects from the rule when the temporary enforcement safe harbor terminates. This case clearly involves ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all’ … and therefore is not ripe for review”.
He went on to say that the plaintiffs “speculate that religious organization employers who do continue to provide health coverage to employees will attempt to qualify for the rule’s religious employer exemption by ceasing to provide charitable services to persons who do not share the organizations’ religious views, and this in turn will cause those unserved persons to rely on state resources”.
In short, Judge Urborn felt that the plaintiff’s case had no legal merit. There is good reason to believe that the judges who hear cases that are extremely similar to this one will come to the same conclusion.
Image by walknboston on Flickr